Faith and Reason.

[kareface]

So by your logic, we came from evolution...
So what is man made from, well, carbon-based molecules.
Ok, so those molecules are made of atoms, ok, so those atoms are made of protons neutrons, electrons etc, ok, so those particles are made up of sub-atomic particles, and so on and so, until you get to well, we're made of energy. Ok, where's that energy come from? Eventually, in your scientific viewpoint you run into a question of origin that your answer has to be "I don't know".

The answer is currently, "I Don't know". That's not to assume that it's unknowable. Regardless of what science can't give for existence, it doesn't make god any more likely. You are replacing the honest answer, of not knowing, with the dishonest idea that your belief provides any real answers. I will not sacrifice truth for convenience. Unless I can get a free cookie.

When we all come to our ends, which helps to comfort more... that your atoms are all done with and you cease to exist as anything ever again, or something larger may be waiting for you?

What does it matter if it's untrue. Why can't a finite life be one filled with just as much meaning as an infinite one.

I also don't believe that any manmade text is any account of any god's actual doing, but somewhere along the line of questioning, science runs out of answers, and the thought that we're all here because the primordial ooze dripped down the proper side of the volcanic rock isn't a thought that's comforting.

I believe it was Feynman that said, we are all star dust, we are a way for the universe to know its self. Are you willing to sacrifice truth for comfort? What if those comforts inhibit the search for truth. What if god isn't benevolent. What if our at the end of your life you end up with nothing but pain after. How can you know what the afterlife will be if god is knowable.

[kareface]

Heathen! The FSM will strike you down with his noodly appendage!

However in a fight between Jesus vs. FSM, or Jesus Vs. MWB, the MWB is more likely to win. It's been well documented that Jesus is weak to piercing.

[thatwasnifty]

The answer is currently, "I Don't know". That's not to assume that it's unknowable. Regardless of what science can't give for existence, it doesn't make god any more likely. You are replacing the honest answer, of not knowing, with the dishonest idea that your belief provides any real answers. I will not sacrifice truth for convenience. Unless I can get a free cookie.

Don't they give out cookies in Mass or something?

Also, I agree. Just because we don't know now doesn't mean we won't eventually know, and reason is what will allow us to eventually know because it demands that we continue questioning and experimenting. Faith means just accepting some conclusion without any further investigation, and at best that's dishonest. I don't care if it's comforting, it's still wrong.

[kareface]

I forgot to mention, it's the best cookie ever.

[Tristam]

I forgot to mention, it's the best cookie ever.

now this is the sort of prosyletization that speaks to me

[Penthesilea]

http://images.shoutwire.com/pic_full...1fcf83e4cd.jpg

I just found and liked this picture ^^

I always disliked this picture cause Epicurus is way older than 33ad or whatever

[oldoldman]

When we all come to our ends, which helps to comfort more... that your atoms are all done with and you cease to exist as anything ever again, or something larger may be waiting for you?

I grew up a christian, but the past three years I've been in school studying physics and I'm doubting more and more stuff each day. To quote House: "It gives me comfort to know that this life isn't just some divine test."

[Bingbong]

Faith means just accepting some conclusion without any further investigation, and at best that's dishonest.

My Faith doesn't mean that at all.

I guess I have 2 points, one I saw made pages and pages ago, that reason and faith are both moving towards an ultimate goal - understanding. One obviously moves at a faster pace than the other.

The other point, if my faith has no bearing on your life, where does the justification come from that says you may dismiss my faith because you don't have it?

[oldoldman]

The other point, if my faith has no bearing on your life, where does the justification come from that says you may dismiss my faith because you don't have it?

Probably the same place as your justification to dismiss his lack of faith because you do have it.

And yea Epicurus was like 300 BC

[Bingbong]

Probably the same place as your justification to dismiss his lack of faith because you do have it.

Actually, I said quite the opposite, my faith allows me the ability to let everyone have their own beliefs, or non-belief, and furthermore, having it without the dilemma of having someone else push that belief on you.

[kareface]

I guess I have 2 points, one I saw made pages and pages ago, that reason and faith are both moving towards an ultimate goal - understanding. One obviously moves at a faster pace than the other.

The problem is, faith claims to know the answers, and only can be proven wrong if you can discover the real answers through another process. You should thank your god that we had people who were able to look past faith, even contradict it, like Darwin, someone who struggled with the facts that he was presented with.

if my faith has no bearing on your life, where does the justification come from that says you may dismiss my faith because you don't have it?

One can make the argument that we should go through our lives with as few beliefs as we can manage. One can also make the argument that moderates give credence to the devout. However, I personally think if your belief doesn't hurt anyone else, it won't bother me. Just don't expect me, or anyone to take it seriously.

Actually, I said quite the opposite, my faith allows me the ability to let everyone have their own beliefs, or non-belief, and furthermore, having it without the dilemma of having someone else push that belief on you.

If your belief hurts no one, I doubt there would be many people on the forums that would object to it. But if your belief interferes with research, prevents people from being happy, or impedes someones life, then I would take issue with it. I don't really think we're saying, "you can't believe". We're just saying, "you're crazy to believe what you do, and if it hurts someone else you should stop". Like I said, just don't expect people to take it seriously.

Edit: There is also only one true belief, and it's staring you right in the face.

[Max™]

Not true. Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

Agnosticism and gnosticism go to that you know.

Atheism and theism go to what you believe.

You can be an Agnostic Atheist, someone who doesn't claim to know but doesn't believe. Or you can be a gnostic theist. Someone who doesn't believe there is a god and claim that they know there is no god.

Saying something has not met the burden of proof and rejecting that notion is not the same as believing that is doesn't exist. Not meeting the burden of proof isn't a faith based position. There is a reason why I don't believe the existence of what you define as god. But to say there is no god, would be a position I would have to support with evidence, and because I would lack any, it is a position that would be best described as belief.

You never have to justify the absents of a position. It would be like saying, "I believe in tinker bell, you have no proof that tinkerbell does not exist, so you believe that tinkerbell does not exist." The burden of proof is not on me to prove tinkerbell does not exist, unless I make the claim that it's impossible that he exists.

Something isn't anymore likely to exist because we can't prove it's non-existence.

Atheism is the belief in a lack of Gods.

Not a lack of belief.

You're conflating terms, as I did with empirical and a priori.


Like, uh...


[Negative Faith]-------[Zero Faith]-------[Positive Faith]
Atheist -----------------Agnostic-------------Theist

Technically an agnostic can lean towards atheism (OR in my case, theism, though I've been to both ends of the spectrum, searching for truth), but they will generally qualify their statements somehow.

Stating "I know there is no god" is illogical, you cannot know this, you cannot prove this, you cannot disprove this, therefore you believe this to be true.

[Max™]

Nether did Bactria until a little while ago. He's there, and you can't prove he's not. Oh, and you know those times when women are mad at you, but they refuse to tell you why, that's caused by him as well. AND MWB could kick the shit out of god anyway.

Technically, THAT is a falsifiable statement.

MWB exists within nature.

Ok, let's check with observations.

Current observations do not support this statement.

Until better observation methods are found, the MWB hypothesis is not one I will accept. I consider it falsified.

My model of the Universe does not need the MWB, no more than it needs the extra 9 dimensions of string theory.

My model is more satisfying than your illusory buffalo (and I'm 3/8ths native american, I know a thing or two about illusory buffalo!), so my model kicked your models ass. WUTNAO KAREFACE!?!?!

:D

Also: my model could explain how to extract cookie dough FROM SPACETIME, so fuck a single cookie with your silly hallucination. Infinite cookies for all!

[kareface]

Are you just posting to increase your post count?

Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference? Are they Alternatives to Each Other?

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"is the absence of belief in deities"

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism)

You are wrong.

[Tristam]

Atheism is the belief in a lack of Gods.

Not a lack of belief.

You're conflating terms, as I did with empirical and a priori.


Like, uh...


[Negative Faith]-------[Zero Faith]-------[Positive Faith]
Atheist -----------------Agnostic-------------Theist

Technically an agnostic can lean towards atheism (OR in my case, theism, though I've been to both ends of the spectrum, searching for truth), but they will generally qualify their statements somehow.

Stating "I know there is no god" is illogical, you cannot know this, you cannot prove this, you cannot disprove this, therefore you believe this to be true.

I don't really agree with this at all.

Where on your spectrum is the lack of belief? If you grew up in a society that did not have any word or explanation for god, what would you be then? You certainly wouldn't be agnostic since you would not even have contemplated the existence of a god. What would you be if not an atheist, since you lack the belief in the supernatural without outright rejection?

[Max™]

Zero Faith, Agnostic.

If you do not know, have never considered either way, you have no preconceptions, and would not likely accept a God without proof of some sort.

[Tristam]

Stating "I know there is no god" is illogical, you cannot know this, you cannot prove this, you cannot disprove this, therefore you believe this to be true.

By this argument though, stating "I know there is no unicorn pissing invisible urine on my head at this very moment" is equally illogical.

We need to move beyond this. For the ability of faith or reason to help us make a judgement about the world, absolute certainty is not needed.

[Tristam]

Zero Faith, Agnostic.

If you do not know, have never considered either way, you have no preconceptions, and would not likely accept a God without proof of some sort.

But agnostics argue that the concept of god is unknowable, implying that they understand the supernatural implication, I think you're defining things by your own subjectiveness (I don't know if that's even a word).

[Max™]

Are you just posting to increase your post count?

You are wrong.

Technically an agnostic can lean towards atheism (OR in my case, theism, though I've been to both ends of the spectrum, searching for truth), but they will generally qualify their statements somehow.

I am not a Theist, nor am I an Atheist.

I am agnostic on this subject because I recognize that whatever God may be, it is not present in this Universe according to current findings. So it must be outside of this Universe, which is not a realm I can do any more than philosophize about.


I do not believe in any version of God that I've heard of so far, but I do not believe it is impossible for there to be any one of them out there, as it is illogical to jump blindly to a conclusion without information.

I honestly do not know, I like the idea that there may be some purpose to mind, but I would not force it on any others as it is unprovable.

[Tristam]

I guess I have 2 points, one I saw made pages and pages ago, that reason and faith are both moving towards an ultimate goal - understanding. One obviously moves at a faster pace than the other.

The problem with faith in this context is sometimes it moves in the opposite direction from understanding, then you have a clash.